I think there are some important distinctions, though. One seemingly major factor in this case was that at no point was it "unfair" to the other investors. At each round, all the other investors had the opportunity to participate on a pro rata basis:

  The determinative factor in the entire fairness analysis was that Baker had structured the financing so that every 
  shareholder of Wine.com could, if it wanted to, purchase its pro rata share of the offering.  In other words, the 
  transaction was not for the "exclusive benefit" of defendants, which under Delaware law is strong evidence of 
  fairness.